MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wrote, ‘Wrong; the architects (note the plural)
> of the Giza necropolis were cogs in a number of
> wheels.’
>
> You reply, ‘Were they?’
>
> Given the enormity of the tasks and the number of
> different skills required to complete them, I
> think it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to
> make.
MJ:
So what is it...they "were" cogs or your "reasonable assumption" that they were?
Also...please confirm how you knew there were more than one...and what was their specific function?
BTW...an architect should not be assumed as being a structural engineer.
> But, Clive, I do understand what your diagram is
> showing (though I happily admit it took me a while
> longer than others here to figure it out).
I doubt if you do have it figured out...why not explain back to me what it is that the illustration states?
> and I am arguing (along with others here) that it is not
> evidence of the AEs measuring gradients and angles
> in degrees.
Now you are arguing?
> You reply, ‘"Authenticated contemporary" get off
> it man...do you realize how foolish you
> write/sound...!’
>
> I realise I am asking for the moon,
No...you are being rediculous...!
> My current understanding of your diagram is that
> you are asserting that a) the N-S position of the
> King’s Chamber was determined by the intersection
> of the two circles and b) these two circles are
> the work of the Pyramid’s architect.
I'm stating a mathematical fact and it's relationship to the measured center distance of the Kc from two set points of this pyramid's base...no more...no less.
> If this is so, then you are also arguing...
I am not arguing anything...you are...don't you understand ?
> But if this were so, you are left with explaining
> why the Queen’s Chamber is over this axis; or are
> you going to argue that the N-S position of the
> Pyramid’s base was determined by the mid-line of
> the Queen’s Chamber?
Let me throw this by you.
Repeat the same drawing that I first illustrated in this post.
Draw a horizontal line 440 units in length. From each end of the base I would like you to draw two "equal" length lines having a height to base ratio of 4/pi...this is the actual square/circle area ratio. Note the point of intersect and measure its height.
Return to the known measures of Petrie's and you will notice that the "Great Step" and the center of the QC align with the point of intersect you drew...yet their vertical positions are nowhere near the intersect.
Isn't that amazing...you used the number pi to find an "imaginary" apex. You must agree, it also matches the angle of the base casing almost perfectly, but that's impossible because it isn't recorded/written anywhere that the AE understood the number pi...right?
> And what of the King’s Chamber itself, Clive; in
> your scheme of things, was it designed before or
> after the architect drew his circles on the plan?
Believe me...the vertical height of the KC is more involved than simple angles drawn from the corners of this structure.
> You reply, ‘Aaah the Great step...what's a pyramid
> without a great step.
>
> Simple answer?
> Not Khufu’s pyramid.
> Perhaps the following will help you understand why
> (in part) I disagree with your 'circles' idea.
Stop...
I do not have any idea of a circle. I show you a circle drawn from specific points of the structure...no more...no less.
> You continue, ‘What of the step in the queen's
> passage...is that important also?
>
> Yes; it is key evidence for my hypothesis...
Aaaaah...now we are getting there...
The posted illustration is "bucking" your hypothesis...right?
> like the King’s Chamber the Queen’s Chamber was
> initially planned with its north wall over the E-W
> axis of the Pyramid’s base, and was – also
> initially – placed vertically several royal cubits
> above the level it is built at.
Awesome...do you have sketches of these initial designs?
Why not elaborate a little more and post a few of them for us to follow?
> You reply, ‘I didn't design it...the pyramid
> builders did.’
>
> Hopefully, the above on my hypothesis has given
> you some idea of why I believe this to be wrong.
Of course it does MJ...without question.
> You reply, ‘There was nothing to take apart...a
> base line of a pyramid, two numerical samples
> converted to angles using a 360 degrees circle and
> a point of intersect. It can't get any simpler.’
>
> The ‘taking apart’ highlighted for me the problem
> of the lengths of the features between the KC and
> the GG, and the relevance or non-relevance of the
> E-W axis of the Pyramid’s base.
Sure...I see your dillema...it must have been a struggle for you.
> p.s. I wrote, ‘However, you have agreed with me
> that one will naturally produce the other.’
> You reply, ‘I didn't...how did you assume that?’
>
> Because in response to my, ‘Projecting a line at
> 31.812 degrees from the south base as you have
> done will naturally produce the 62.831 degrees in
> your diagram, and vice versa.’, you replied, Good
> work....finally...!
I believe I was responding to you actually checking my work.
> What other conclusion could I reasonably have
> drawn?
If you assumed that a line drawn at an angle with repect to the horizontal automatically determines the angle drawn from the other end of the base with respect to the vertical then it only tells me that you do not know your math.
Also...you have not commented on any attempt from yourself at drawing the identical numerical values for a circle divided into parts other than 360.
Therefore, you still have far to go.
Best.
Clive